About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
MSNBCW 8
MSNBC 7
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 3
CNBC 1
KNTV (NBC) 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
they already agreed to that. i think you heard john boehner say that already. we've had votes in the senate where we've actually gotten rid of tax credits. i think that's a given. and i think the vast majority of americans agree with that. the question is how do you do that and how do you allow taxes to rise at the same time you fix the real problem? and the real problem is uncontrolled entitlement spending and a government that has grown massively. not just under this administration, under republican administration. >> let me turn to senator schumer on this point. >> so you have to approach both sides of it. >> let me turn to senator schumer. i'm going to ask you the same question. if the mandate is compromised, what do democrats have to be prepared to accept as a painful outcome in order to achieve compromise? >> well, i agree with you, the mandate is compromise. that's why we have a divided house and senate. and i think if the house stands for anything it's cut government spending, as tom coburn said, and i think we're going to have to do more of it. we heard the mandate in 2010, where i
directly at odds with house speaker john boehner. >> could you accept a deal that does not include tax rate increases for the wealthy? we've seen talk about a possible compromise that could leave rates the same but cap deductions for high-income earners. is that something that's acceptable? >> no. >> not at all no, way? >> no. the preponderance made it very clear in his campaign that there are not enough -- what you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. you cannot go forward -- you have to cut some investments. if you cut too many you are hampering growth, you're hampering education, investments for the future. >> and even thousands of miles away it appears president obama is still focused on those negotiations. while touring a royal monastery with secretary of state clinton in thailand the president was overheard mentioning the budget talks to a monk. the president later clarified his comments -- >> he's not any monk. >> no. >> he has some big i vestments in the stock market. >> he later clarified his comments at a news conference. >> yes, we were working on
election? >> no, not at all. in fact, after election day the president, speaker boehner, senate ma minority leader mitch mcconnell all talking about the facecle life, what they were going to do, not going to do, what they wanted to negotiate, not negotiate, but on friday, as news exploded out from the cia thanks to our own andrea mitchell that the president accepted the resignation of the cia director, general david petraeus, all of that -- you have to add that plus all the things you talked about, fiscal cliff, to what the president has to deal with. as you said, no honeymoon, indeed. >> and added to what jonathan just said, julian, there are some concerns over this that this is just the tip of the iceberg. i want to play you something senator feinstein said to andrea mitchell this afternoon. >> this thing came so fast and hard. since then it's been like peeling an onion. every day another peel comes off and you see a whole new dimension to this. so my concern has actually escalated over the last few days. >> it's clear she's suggesting this is going well beyond the realm of a personal mat
to december 29th and dictator obama forced this on us. is that the game mcconnell and boehner play here? >> i think they know that game won't play well. they have to play it. everyone has to take a sacrifice here, and when you do the numbers with america's finances to keep the entitlements entact, if slightly different from today, to keep social security intact and get the economy back and growing, everyone has to take a little bit of a hit, whether it's the private equity guy with his carried interest exclusion and the $750,000 home morn tax deduction, which is completely absurd. that doesn't help the middle class. they all have to happen. if everyone is -- you saw bob corker last week or over the weekend. there are a lot of sensible people out there. i think sensible minds will prevail. this is just a fiscal cliff. it pushes it off to july 4th to be patriotic with an agreement and framework to work towards a big deal. it is only this artificial construct we're talking about now. what we need to get for everybody to be happy and the markets to be happy and the chinese and the japanese and th
that john boehner had with all of you folks saying get in line, we actually have to have a record to run on in 2014. we can't be obstructionists anymore. the american people have spoken in the election, let's do something. newt gingrich, former speaker of the house, failed presidential candidate, giving advice to the republican party, i would advise the republican party to take that with a huge salt lick. >> yeah. >> ashley, you were on the trail covering romney and there for the last days of his candidacy. do you sense now there is supposedly a come to jesus moment happening within the republican party, that the moderate wing will have a strong voice? >> well, i mean one thing you're seeing before the election, before the president won re-election and seemed like leaders in congress were going to be more willing to compromise, governor romney was sounding a bipartisan theme even during the election. even before, some people would argue the president has a mandate, some wouldn't, bipartisanship was what was persuading the most voters on the trail. after the election there's probably goin
not having the same level of influence in terms of those races. before hand, speaker boehner had a hard time getting some of his more conservative members to buy in to certain concrete hiatt -- compromises. going forward, we will have to see if the tea party conservatives will seem to have the same support. the president now has the upper hand and when he talks to speaker boehner he will have to take that message back and he gets a little bit more behind him. >> week and a shop with a meeting between the leaders and the white house. what is the dynamic? >> it will be very interesting to see. hopefully we will hear from them exactly what their conversation was with the president. it is unlikely that we're going to see a detailed agreement on specific issues. are we going to hear about tax breaks or how entitlement reform is going to happen in the deal? on not sure. these figures are going to be out there. they're all going to be scrambling to set the tone in the way that they want to set it. of they will have discussions like the democratic leaders also say let these are the areas where we ma
incomes now and ensuring security for the future. hthis is the end of vision that speaker boehner without for the country last week. i cannot think why the present would not embrace it. someone said we should go over the cliff. just go off of the cliff. hope for the best. i do not think that is what the american people had in mind when they went to the polls last week. but they had in mind is that we put the contest of the past two years behind us and work it out. the best way forward in the way that will lead to jobs and growth, a smaller deficits, and you were political fights is to keep everyone where they are. figure out a way to avoid the automatic defense cuts scheduled to hit at the end of the year without putting a penny last thing we promised and committed to the entitlement reforms that we all claim we want. a simpler tax code that lowers rates and cuts special interest loopholes would create jobs and result in more revenue without raising anyone's rates. we know this because we have seen it before. it actually works. i do not think washington should get any of that extra revenu
.6 trillion of new revenue. boehner had agreed to $800 billion. it's not hard to find $1.2 trillion as a kind of middle ground to that. then you want to have $4 trillion of total deficit reduction, so that leaves $2.8 trillion of spending reductions that have to happen. here's what people miss. we can avoid going over the cliff with the stroke of a pen. they can just extend all this stuff and kick the can down the road. the real question is are we going to have a big deal? are we going to agree on the major spending restraints that we need as well as the tax stuff in order to actually get the deficit under control? and i think the betting on that is less than 50%. i think we have a great shot at it. but it's going to be really, really hard. >> is that the view from wall street, too? they're not totally confident that this is going to happen? >> what you see in the stock market at the moment is that wall street is not totally confident. that's for sure. >> all right. steve, thanks so much. >> pleasure. >>> coming up, independent senator-elect of maine, angus king joins the conversation. he's a
, but it all had to come from spending. the republicans got their way. remember the talks about boehner and the negotiations on the debt ceiling. he got 98% of what he wanted. so the conversation used to be we will cut the deficit through spending cuts. now within the space of a week, the same people, glen hubbard who was romney's chief economic adviser slated to be the federal reserve head if romney had won has an op-ed in the financial times today saying the first thing we should do is focus on more revenues and the way to get that is from capping deductions for the wealthy. so it's extraordinary the shape of the the rhetoric that's coming from republicans in the the last week has really changed a great deal. i think they recognize, even if obama doesn't recognize and even if most centrist democrats don't recognize it, they hold all the cards here. >> so who's the god you're referring to there? >> grover norquist? i'd say it's more a collection of dayties who said the first -- >> but that's the point. republican leaders and some republican thought leaders might be coming around that w
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
years later, what moment are we in as boehner enters? >> this is a magic moment, i really do. it is a moment when our generation has a chance to do something about this problem that we created. it is our generation that got us into this mess, and we ought to get ourselves out. we got a good chance. you got a second-term democrat president who has come out and said he is willing to put entitlements on the table. big deal. you've got a speaker, a republican speaker, who really gets at, who really understands the depths of the problems we face, and he has come out and said we are going to put revenues on the table. big move. he got at least half the members of the senate already saying they will support a balanced plan, which makes a lot of sense. we have got the business community lined up firmly against -- for doing something smart, and i guess most importantly, we got this fiscal cliff where if we go over it, we are going to face the most predictable economic crisis in history. fortunately for all of us, it is also the most of voidable. this is the magic moment to get somethi
a guy before i worked for romney i worked for boehner in the majority leader officer, i called up the digital guy tell me about twitter. how it's going work. he said you don't need to know it. it's not a big thing. here we're now, i notice during the campaign so much of what we did was driven from the bottom up through twitter. and -- even when i was on the plane. we would do the different gaggle. she would do it on a bigger plane. air force one. we call pear force one. i would got back of the plane and gaggle for fifteen or twint minutes. by the time i would come back i would come back on twitter and say it made news. >> people responded and taked you on twitter. >> when you say people you don't mean people you mean reporters. >> or people. [laughter] reporters are not people. >> that was on the free to be you and me. the reporters are people. but you mean this was the kind of back stage conversation you were watching playout on twitter? sometimes real people. it was more important how the journalist were using twitter. >> yeah. it became a incredible news. you could see the jour
that are addressing boehner build is they discovered every couple days. they easily --vulnerabilities they discovered every couple days and patched up. it is very important you keep your start -- software and hardware up to current configuration c do not have any vulnerabilities. almost all of those agencies are reporting they are not doing that. segregation of duties -- this may not be the most important. this is the fox guarding the hen house. you have secured personnel responsible for security management. those should be different people than the people who have just general system administration functions. in general when you get into a very trusted organization many times this person could be one and the same. then you have contingency planning or disaster recovery. this deals with if something does happen, and a natural disaster or a man-made disaster or an attack, can you get back up if your system crashes? you have redundancy behind it? is it running in parallel with your current system, a hot backup so it ultimately goes over -- automatically goes over, or is there some process for you back
.6 would be 1.5 to 1, when he was with boehner, 800, wanted another 4. >> you were in the room so you know. >> first of all, since we talk about bowles-simpson so much, bowles-simpson has a 1:1 ratio. >> it doesn't. >> i thought it's 1:4. >> it's 1:3. >> in the way the bowles-simpson frame was put out something people didn't realize was that in terms of the revenue number they weren't counting the expiration of the high income tax cuts which they proposed to get rid of. apples to apples, in terms of the way people are currently adding up their math, it's approximately a 1:1 ratio. >> erskine bowles said you should look at 3:1 in terms of spending cuts to revenue. >> i'm just saying what was in bowles-simpson. >> let's not forget about growth, we need to stimulate growth and a lot of it on the innovation side. >> david thank you, appreciate it i put away money. i was 21, so i said, "hmm, i want to retire at 55." and before you know it, i'm 58 years old. time went by very fast. it goes by too, too fast. ♪ but i would do it again in a heartbeat. [ laughs ] ♪ ♪ . >>> welcome back, everyb
it off track when there were in fact very close. i think boehner has been very clear. i think revenues are on the table. they are at the moment drawing a line on tax rates, but we will see where that goes. the last time, you are right, didn't work and we were not facing quite the same set of circumstances we are facing today so i'm cautiously optimistic although i will offer to say lastly that people sometimes say okay, it looks like simpson-bowles, everything in between zero and $4 trillion we could end up with all kinds of outcomes that may be less than i would like and maybe less than all of you would like but at least something. i'm hoping it is more over here but i don't know. >> and steve, so we are gathered here to talk about u.s. global competitiveness. how important is resolving these issues to the american position on the global economy? >> first of all i think it's important not just our position in the global comment about our position in the world. admiral mullen who was the previous chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said our greatest national security threat was our f
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)